If it uses the proper lofting profile and true top speed it wont loose energy as bad, with the improved seeker head like it should have, it will have better targeting and tracking on its own, also PD and all aspect. The AIM54C in the game right now is so innacurately modeled
1 Like
You can launch a phoenix way before any of the other fox 3’s except fakour and It does technically give an advantage but with how unplayable it is in some matches, I think It would balance out with a performance buff. Even if its not perfectly accurate.
You know that top speed doesn’t really matter; the missile in War Thunder goes past Mach 4, but that’s only under ideal conditions you’ll never see. It doesn’t matter if the stat card says Mach 10 it’ll never reach that speed.
Because it’s a game and the missile was added to balance it out
The AIM-54 was designed for something completely different from the other Fox-3s , even with the correct model, the AIM-54 will never hit the target before the other Fox-3s
1 Like
IRL it would loft much higher and face less air resistence so it would retain energy better right? Its not like I am an Aerospace Engineer or anything, I might know something about aerodynamics. If its top speed is accurate, and lofting is accurate, It will atleast have a chance to reach its target.
1 Like
It is a medium- to long-range aircraft designed to control airspace and intercept enemy aircraft approaching a fleet or military force. Its primary targets are typically bombers or strike aircraft entering the area
( Fleet Air Defense Interceptor)
And I’m not denying that it’s impossible
But we can also look at it from another perspective: if a single aircraft can perform every role, then what purpose would other aircraft have? In a single match, we may actually need a variety of aircraft, each playing different roles, to create a more fun and balanced experience
In the end, when we discuss things and certain information or documents are revealed, we may need to consider who benefits the most, or whether we are simply seeking our own advantage
How long do you think it will take for the missile to reach the altitude where air resistance is low? How long do you think it will take for the missile to reach top speed? Do you think you’ll reach that altitude in your plane without being intercepted?
I’ve already told you this is pointless; top speed is only achieved if the missile is launched under ideal conditions, with the plane at the ideal speed and altitude even IRL
It hits the target , the problem isn’t the speed or the loft, but the missile’s seeker, which is CW even a pulse doppler wouldn’t solve it, because the chaff is ridiculously strong in War Thunder.
1 Like
The AIM-54C could be improved either by finding sources for its later motor and thrust output, or by proving that its current in-game acceleration is too smooth and should include a stronger initial thrust phase. The Fakour-90 has a much more powerful boost phase, and the AIM-54C should never be as strong as it. However, the Phoenix may still deserve a similar behavior on a much smaller scale: a brief initial acceleration peak, then a weaker sustain phase, followed by gradual speed loss after burnout.
But the Fakour has an engine made by Iran that’s literally a rocket it’s not like the AIM-54 , The AIM-54 is equipped with an engine designed for much longer ranges.
I dont think something traveling at multiple times the speed of sound has trouble reaching 60k+ feet…
Because chaff is extremely strong in War Thunder, better chaff resistance would be one possible way to improve the AIM-54C/C+. However, the problem is that the documentation is vague and not easily quantifiable, so I am not sure Gaijin would give it strong chaff resistance based on that alone but they can factually do this.
That said, since the missile was changed/renamed to the AIM-54C+, and the C+ / ECCM-Sealed variants are associated with improved ECCM, I could see Gaijin using that as justification for a small seeker/ECCM improvement. I would not expect anything massive, but a slight boost to chaff resistance would make sense.
1 Like
???, the thing is, you think the missile leaves the pylon at top speed, but that’s not the case it accelerates as it flies through the air.
Even if the missile uses Pulse Doppler technology, it will be just like the AIM-120, which is still very easy to evade. In short, one thing is certain the AIM-54 won’t be any better than an AIM-120.
I’m not saying the missile leaves the pylon at top speed. Obviously it accelerates after launch.
My point is that on a long-range shot, the missile should climb early while accelerating so it can spend more of the flight in thinner air and preserve energy. That does not mean it instantly reaches top speed or teleports to altitude. It just means the loft profile matters a lot for a missile designed around very long-range shots.
1 Like
Not better but still wrecked far more lobbied at the same br.
Sorry but the FM was piss compared to the F16, the ET also is flare hungry as hell always has been
The ETs advantage was VS folks that didnt know you were therr
1 Like
the FM is still usable in combat, its not a good dogfighter sure but the missiles on it + HMD help make up for it
Exactly it’s what enables the missile to cover long distances, not its high speed. It will always hit the target, even from 100 km away, if the target doesn’t move. The problem is that targets aren’t stationary
Yeah and they are easy to defend because of other factors, If you read the dedicated forumn to this they share all the same frustrations.
1 Like
It cant hit mach 5 at 40000 feet though, it has to be much higher, also the game doesnt model increases rocket performance with altitude, to my knowledge,
1 Like
Iran-Iraq war had plenty of dogfights…
3 Likes
The Fakour’s 90’s motor details are unclear, but the AIM-54 also uses a solid-propellant rocket motor. They are the same broad propulsion category, just not the same motor or the same performance.
I am not arguing that the AIM-54 should accelerate like the Fakour. The Fakour is clearly much more powerful in-game. My point is only that the AIM-54 should not necessarily have a perfectly flat constant-thrust motor. If the available thrust and impulse figures are interpreted as non-flat motor data, then a small early thrust peak or slightly stronger initial acceleration would be more believable than the current very smooth 14.35 kN × 30 s model.
So no, the AIM-54 should not get Fakour speed or Fakour acceleration. I am only saying its behavior could be adjusted a few percent toward a more realistic thrust curve, instead of starting so smoothly as some sources state a 30s acceleration. The problem is that it’s not something you can prove and since they did an arbitrarily implementation it’s already over on this side of the battle I would say as smooth curves like this are pretty rare.
Edit: Since it should climb when launched but doesn’t in game, this make even more sense .
3 Likes